nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread II

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Those with long memories will recall the economic war of the nineteen thirties where the Irish Gov refused to pay the annuity money to the British Gov saying they were due to the Irish Gov (Dev was responsible for this). Britain retaliated by refusing to buy Irish beef. As a consequence, the Irish herd was culled with no market. Come 1939, Britain decided to begin buying Irish beef again because of the war. Unfortunately, they were too late - there was no beef.

Let us hope history is not repeated.

Back then we didn't have a world wide market.

More recently we've been able to export beef to markets like the Middle East which the UK couldn't because of politics.

Also the drop in sterling makes the UK less attractive to our exporters.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Bank's charter would only affect the UK if they want to borrow from it, so in theory it should only affect the projects the funds are being used for, would it not?

Yes. My point is that, as the charter stands at present, once the UK leaves the EU, the criteria that the EIB uses to evaluate loans outside the EU would likely result in very few UK projects receiving funding. Which may be fine if the UK has no interest in UK projects being able to access funding from the EIB. But, if that's the case, that brings me to my main point:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Anyway, getting back to the original point of this particular strand of the thread, my point was that the statement by David Davis that the UK may wish to remain in the EIB, isn't as bat**** crazy as originally claimed. The activities of the EIB could almost be ringfenced from the discussion if this is agreed at an early stage. It will also make sorting out the Brexit bill a lot easier.

It may not be ideal for everyone involved, but from a pragmatic point of view, it could very well make sense.

I'm not sure why it makes sense from the UK's point of view. Assuming the charter, policy, etc of the EIB is not changed, why would the UK want to commit a large amount of capital to maintaining its membership? The EIB doesn't pay dividends or distribute profits to its members. Members maintain their investments in it because they are obliged to as members of the EU, which obviously won't apply to the UK post-Brexit, and because they want to support the Bank's rule of representing the interests of EU members, implementing EU policy and contributing to EU policy objectives. And why, as a non-member, would the UK want to do any of these things?

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I genuinely don't see why Davis thinks that continued UK membership would be a good idea. Has he said anything about this? Is this just one of his thought bubbles? Is it an attempt to soften Brexit by sneaking in a continued role for Britain in funding and implementing EU policies hoping that nobody on the Tory Right notices? Is it just an attempt to narrow the scope of the negotiations by arbitrarily chopping bits off in the hope of reducing the scale of the project so that it can be completed by March '19?

The media are reporting that Davis wants continued access to EIB funding, and this strongly suggests that the reason for wanting continued membership of the EIB is to influence the bank in its attitude to lending to UK projects. That means a significant shift in the Bank's current reason for living so, no, that's not just a sensible pragmatic ring-fencing of purely technical issues. It's quite fundamental.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I genuinely don't see why Davis thinks that continued UK membership would be a good idea.

Perhaps he has figured out that it will cost a sh!tload of money to disentangle the UK from the EIB?

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well sure, but they still need to set up a separate quango to regulate wine to make sure UK consumers are not drinking antifreeze.

Or, you could just let them drink antifreeze.

More seriously, this is one area where the UK probably doesn't need a huge amount of regulation. Countries that produce wine have an interest in maintaining standards and they have their own regulatory regimes. The great bulk of the wine consumed in the UK comes from the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and the USA (in that order). The amount of wine that comes from UK producers, and is regulated only in the UK, is tiny - well under 1% of total consumption. It's unlikely that consumer safety would be imperilled by the UK choosing to rely entirely on regulation in the producer countries.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps he has figured out that it will cost a sh!tload of money to disentangle the UK from the EIB?

It will cost the EIB a sh!tload of money and, indirectly, the other member states, who will likely be asked to contribute further capital to replace the capital repaid to the UK. The UK can expect to nett about EUR 10 billion from the exercise.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, you could just let them drink antifreeze.

More seriously, this is one area where the UK probably doesn't need a huge amount of regulation. Countries that produce wine have an interest in maintaining standards and they have their own regulatory regimes. The great bulk of the wine consumed in the UK comes from the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and the USA (in that order). The amount of wine that comes from UK producers, and is regulated only in the UK, is tiny - well under 1% of total consumption. It's unlikely that consumer safety would be imperilled by the UK choosing to rely entirely on regulation in the producer countries.

This is why the GI (geographical origins) aspect of the EU's IP position paper is important: with those couched into (protected by/enforceable under) UK law, there is no need for a new UK quango or agency, just let Trading Standards and the Courts enforce the GI characteristics against 'chancer' UK producers/importers.

That's the principle, though. The practice (particularly, and to begin with, 'how to' couch) is likely to be another story alright.

View

Peregrinus wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps he has figured out that it will cost a sh!tload of money to disentangle the UK from the EIB?

It will cost the EIB a sh!tload of money and, indirectly, the other member states, who will likely be asked to contribute further capital to replace the capital repaid to the UK. The UK can expect to nett about EUR 10 billion from the exercise.

Like many other Brexit tall tales that would appear - surprise, surprise! - not to be true:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

It will cost the EIB a sh!tload of money and, indirectly, the other member states, who will likely be asked to contribute further capital to replace the capital repaid to the UK. The UK can expect to nett about EUR 10 billion from the exercise.

Actually the other way around; as per earlier post:

jm08 wrote: »

Here is a reference to it (though not the one I initially came across).

But Britain is also liable to cover its portion of the bank’s debt, which amounts to 469 billion euros, EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a hearing at the economic affairs committee of the European Parliament.
“Britain has 16 percent of the shares and probably will want to have a countervalue of these shares when they leave. On the other hand, we also have contingency liabilities of (half a trillion) euros in which the United Kingdom participates with 16 percent,” Hoyer told lawmakers.
If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

Which would explain why he'd like to stay in simply to not have to pony up the 65.3 billion on top of the exit bill being discussed.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

Like many other Brexit tall tales that would appear - surprise, surprise! - not to be true:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

I'm not convinced. As reported in your link, Hoyer's analysis treats the UK has have a proportionate share of the Bank's liabilities, but ignores any similar proportionate share of the bank's assets. That doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

View

Regarding the EIB, it should be pointed out that the legal "foundations" for it are the EU Treaties (specifically art 318 TFEU & Annex 5).

It is therefore clear that for any country to be a member of the EIB, it must be an EU member and accept in full EU law.

To quote from the EIB's statute:

Statute of the European Investment Bank
(Version dated 1 July 2013)

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to lay down the Statute of the European Investment Bank provided for in Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1
The European Investment Bank established by Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter called the ‘Bank’) is hereby constituted; it shall perform its functions and carry on its activities in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties and of this Statute.

Article 2
The task of the Bank shall be that defined in Article 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Article 3
In accordance with Article 308 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Bank’s members shall be the Member States.

....

Therefore the suggestion that the UK can continue as an EIB member is crazy, it would be akin to suggesting that the people of (the Republic of) Ireland should be able to return MPs to Westminster decades after us leaving the UK.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or, you could just let them drink antifreeze.

More seriously, this is one area where the UK probably doesn't need a huge amount of regulation. Countries that produce wine have an interest in maintaining standards and they have their own regulatory regimes. The great bulk of the wine consumed in the UK comes from the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and the USA (in that order). The amount of wine that comes from UK producers, and is regulated only in the UK, is tiny - well under 1% of total consumption. It's unlikely that consumer safety would be imperilled by the UK choosing to rely entirely on regulation in the producer countries.

Interesting, but let us say that a vineyard in France produces wine that is not up to EU standards (too much antifreeze:)) but is still drinkable. What is to stop that French vineyard exporting that sub-standard wine to the UK post-Brexit? The UK isn't monitoring it and so long as the wine doesn't go on EU shelves, the EU doesn't care. Am I missing something?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not convinced. As reported in your link, Hoyer's analysis treats the UK has have a proportionate share of the Bank's liabilities, but ignores any similar proportionate share of the bank's assets. That doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

No, it is doling out 16% of assets and 16% of liabilities.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Interesting, but let us say that a vineyard in France produces wine that is not up to EU standards (too much antifreeze:)) but is still drinkable. What is to stop that French vineyard exporting that sub-standard wine to the UK post-Brexit? The UK isn't monitoring it and so long as the wine doesn't go on EU shelves, the EU doesn't care. Am I missing something?

The EU does care. The standards are for wine produced in (in this case) France, not for wine sold in France.

And this suits the wine industry. The international reputation of French wine would be imperilled if they were free to export paintstripper as French wine, so they are not really interested in having a regulatory regime which would allow them to do that.

ambro25

blanch152 wrote: »

Interesting, but let us say that a vineyard in France produces wine that is not up to EU standards (too much antifreeze:)) but is still drinkable. What is to stop that French vineyard exporting that sub-standard wine to the UK post-Brexit? The UK isn't monitoring it and so long as the wine doesn't go on EU shelves, the EU doesn't care. Am I missing something?

Nothing's to stop the exporting to the UK, and I can't see the problem (since it's "still drinkable"). UK consumers will just vote with their palate wallet.

What the French producer can't do however, is call its antifreeze substitute a Côtes du Rhône or a Châblis, because per Peregrinus post above. That's where the GI bit I posted above comes in (from the point of view of protecting consumers, so much EU ones as foreign (UK) ones).

It would have to be called vin de table (the lowest quality paint-stripping antifreeze that is still drinkable, by French normative standard). Nothing to stop the UK importer lifestyle -rebadging/-rebranding it as they wish for marketability (...just so long as the UK importer itself does not rebadge it a Côtes du Rhône or a Châblis, and which is exactly why the EU is insisting on GIs in its IP position paper: so 'chancer' UK importers who do just that -and you just know that some would- can be knocked on the head).

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it is doling out 16% of assets and 16% of liabilities.

No, it's not:

"If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB."

(Emphasis added).

In other words, the only set-off against the share of liabilities is the share of capital. But the bank also has outstanding loans to borrowers of 457 billion euros. That's a bit asset; why is the UK not being credited with a 16.1% share of the loan book?

There may be a justification for ignoring the asset represented by the loan book but, right now, I'm not seeing it.

Gerry T

If the UK stayed in the EIB would any loans and the receiving parties be subject to European courts in the event of dispute...would that be a problem for the UK
Secondly the UK will have to compete with other non EU countries for loans as all won't get funding, it may prove far more difficult that at present to secure funding.
The EU may take a position that as UK is no longer in the EU, and it's overall balance sheet with the EIB is in deficit, that, that is an untenable position. The EU may request the UK clears that debt as part of exit.
Finally, while the EU doesn't want to "punish" the UK it must put the interests of the member states above "good will" to the UK.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not:

"If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB."

(Emphasis added).

In other words, the only set-off against the share of liabilities is the share of capital. But the bank also has outstanding loans to borrowers of 457 billion euros. That's a bit asset; why is the UK not being credited with a 16.1% share of the loan book?

There may be a justification for ignoring the asset represented by the loan book but, right now, I'm not seeing it.

A smaller share of underwriting in the total loan-book?

Would that share be pro-rata he UK's shareholding (as your post suggests), or do EIB members underwrite more or less loans/loan shares than others? What are the rules? [just musing here, IDK]

Still doesn't explain totally ignoring it though, you're right to query that.

Sam Russell

Thomas__ wrote: »

I didn´t even know that they had one. Always thought the climate is not fit for growing one.

It isn't.

They do more home brew wine than commercial wine. It is one of the industries hoping to make it big after Brexit when all this Prosecco gets too expensive for the yummy muumies.

You need sunshine for red wine, so they produce a very delicate (read - tasteless) white wine, which they might put fizz into and call it Brexecco.

.

View

The value of the current liabilities that the EIB has is clear since the amount it has borrowed is a known quantity. The value of its current "assets" - specifically the loans it has made - is however not clear and won't be known until their repayment schedules is over. There is risk they won't be repaid of course and all the current member states act as guarantors to cover that risk. If one country decides to avoid that risk (by leaving), it is perfectly legitimate of the others to discount the "value" of those loans accordingly since there is no reason why a country should get all the reward if it avoids a significant part of the associated press risk.

To do an analogy, if Joe & Pat spot that the Dundrum shopping centre is worth a billion and decide to replicate it, their new Dundrum may well be also worth a billion when completed. There is however no way Joe can expect Pat to buy him our for half a billion shortly after the foundations are dug since the new Dundrum clearly isn't worth a billion at that stage. In addition if Joe insists on a sale right now, then Pat is free to offer anything he wants for Joe's stake as Joe has ruled out the "I'll stay in and sell later" option.

ambro25

View wrote: »

The value of the current liabilities that the EIB has is clear since the amount it has borrowed is a known quantity. The value of its current "assets" - specifically the loans it has made - is however not clear and won't be known until their repayment schedules is over. There is risk they won't be repaid of course and all the current member states act as guarantors to cover that risk. If one country decides to avoid that risk (by leaving), it is perfectly legitimate of the others to discount the "value" of those loans accordingly since there is no reason why a country should get all the reward if it avoids a significant part of the associated press risk.<...>

That equitable view makes sense if the EIB is set up as a partnership (wherein the EU27 would, both collectively and individually, shoulder the full share of the liabilities and risks left by the departing UK). But is it?

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

It isn't.

They do more home brew wine than commercial wine. It is one of the industries hoping to make it big after Brexit when all this Prosecco gets too expensive for the yummy muumies.

You need sunshine for red wine, so they produce a very delicate (read - tasteless) white wine, which they might put fizz into and call it Brexecco.
.

Aah Sam, is there anything about the UK you can't belittle?

When you say "Here" by the way, does that mean you live in the UK?

View wrote: »

The value of the current liabilities that the EIB has is clear since the amount it has borrowed is a known quantity. The value of its current "assets" - specifically the loans it has made - is however not clear and won't be known until their repayment schedules is over. There is risk they won't be repaid of course and all the current member states act as guarantors to cover that risk. If one country decides to avoid that risk (by leaving), it is perfectly legitimate of the others to discount the "value" of those loans accordingly since there is no reason why a country should get all the reward if it avoids a significant part of the associated press risk.

To do an analogy, if Joe & Pat spot that the Dundrum shopping centre is worth a billion and decide to replicate it, their new Dundrum may well be also worth a billion when completed. There is however no way Joe can expect Pat to buy him our for half a billion shortly after the foundations are dug since the new Dundrum clearly isn't worth a billion at that stage. In addition if Joe insists on a sale right now, then Pat is free to offer anything he wants for Joe's stake as Joe has ruled out the "I'll stay in and sell later" option.

Does that not presumes that the loans return a profit, which as far as I am aware, they do not. They are loaned out at the same rate the bank's get. It is a not for profit bank, it is just a facility for the smaller eu states to get cheap loans using the bigger economies credit status and ability to get cheap finance.

jm08

ambro25 wrote: »

That equitable view makes sense if the EIB is set up as a partnership (wherein the EU27 would, both collectively and individually, shoulder the full share of the liabilities and risks left by the departing UK). But is it?

Looks like it from this:

Shareholders

The shareholders of the European Investment Bank are the 28 Member States of the European Union.

The EU Member States are fully eligible for Bank financing operations.
Each Member State’s share in the Bank’s capital is based on its economic weight within the European Union (expressed in GDP) at the time of its accession.

Under its Statute, the Bank is authorised to have maximum loans outstanding equivalent to two and a half times its subscribed capital.

http://www.eib.org/about/governance-and-structure/shareholders/index.htm

edit: Its interesting that countries can only borrow 2.5% of their share capital. With such outstanding loans, it makes sense for the UK to actually remain a shareholder.

ambro25

jm08 wrote: »

Looks like it from this:
<...>

Thanks for the link, jm08, it led me to the Statutes but, from those, it is not a partnership - at least within the conventional sense of the word, from a liability point of view:

The Member States shall be liable only up to the amount of their share of the capital subscribed and not paid up.

(Article 4.1)

But there are other very interesting provisions, material to the present discussion, such as-

The subscribed capital shall be paid in by Member States to the extent of 8.919255272% on average of the amounts laid down in Article 4(1).

(Article 5.1)

So, notionally, unless I have it wrong, that 16% of the UK's shareholding is really only worth €3.5bn (8.9% of €39bn).

oppenheimer1

Sam Russell wrote: »

It isn't.

They do more home brew wine than commercial wine. It is one of the industries hoping to make it big after Brexit when all this Prosecco gets too expensive for the yummy muumies.

You need sunshine for red wine, so they produce a very delicate (read - tasteless) white wine, which they might put fizz into and call it Brexecco.

.

They produce sparkling white and rose wines in the South east of England. In fairness they're not bad wines at all.

Sam Russell

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They produce sparkling white and rose wines in the South east of England. In fairness they're not bad wines at all.

I know this is taking the discussion from the meat of the issue, but no matter how good their wine is, it is not a major industry and is not likely to figure in the Brexit deal. For the EU, wine is big business and will figure in the deal in one way or another.

@ Fred: I am not doing anymore than pointing out that wine is not a major industry for the UK and only exists in a very few parts of the most southerly counties and only in a very small way, producing a very esoteric product. If you recall, did not Boris make some snide remark about Prosecco?

In a similar vein, the Morgan car company is not a major player in the motor industry, but it is British owned - and might be one of the largest British owned car companies. They do make nice cars though.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

In a similar vein, the Morgan car company is not a major player in the motor industry, but it is British owned - and might be one of the largest British owned car companies. They do make nice cars though.

and the relevance of that is what?

Oh yes, you like to keep pointing out how Jaguar/Land Rover isn't British owned and therefore the UK doesn't have any major car producers the same with Italy I guess.

A bit like Ireland doesn't have any major Beer or Whisky producers :rolleyes:

Like I said, more belittling.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

I would expect massive assistance from our EU partners, chartering ferries and aircraft if it comes to that. The rest of the EU knows we did not ask for Brexit and know we are committed members of our European Union. It would be the modern equivalent of the Berlin Airlift.

.

Which goes to show that the Brexiteers are not the sole occupants of fantasy land.

There is not the slightest possibility that the EU will get involved in operating or subsidising Irish freight costs, for reasons that were already explained to you.

RDM_83 again

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

something seems off there?

Rich bosses pay workers too little and CEOs too much. Workers complain. Rich bosses buy newspapers, and have the papers blame immigrants and the EU for bad pay.

Workers vote for Brexit, taking themselves out of EU social protections and leaving themselves at the mercy of the Tories who are also bought by the rich.

Now bosses say they are competing with China and India instead of France and Germany, so they must pay workers even less, so there is more for themselves and their Tory pets' golden castle moat duck islands.

That answer doesn't even attempt to answer how the wage flatlining has occured. You might have a low opinion of Brits but even they have the ability to take the job that pays more if there is two vacancies. I'm not a Brexit fan and definitely not a "Branson/Borris" Brexit fan but look at what you've posted in reference to the question.

Peregrinus wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I would also wonder how these studies square with the fact that real wages in the UK in many sectors haven't grown as much at all as they should have, I mean that's a constant source of complaint from the left too right, something seems off there?

You don't think depressed consumer demand attributable to prolonged austerity policies might have anything to do with it at all?

Real wages are not falling because those dusky foreigners are taking all the jobs. The UK is pretty much at full employment, and most of those who are unemployed are in that position not because they cannot find jobs due to competition from the DFs, but rather because they face challenges of their own - illness, disablity, social disadvantage, a prison record, single parenthood.

In times of full employment, you normally expect real wage to rise. So why aren't they? Partly because British labour productivity is poor, which generally reflects under-investment, and partly because (in recent times) inflation is rising, which is of course largely attributable to the declining pound. It's also because wage inequality in the UK is high, and getting higher - what real wage growth there has been in the UK has been for workers earning above the median.

So, a complex of problems and issues, then, and not easy to solve. Particularly not easy to solve without upsetting some of the core supports of the Tory party. On the whole, much easier to blame the dusky foreigners.

I am not discounting the low productivity and lower consumer confidence as factors, that doesn't preclude migration being a factor too.

Inflation/declining pound shouldn't be relevant at all to the period these studies apparently covered (pre-2015).

Wage inequality also isn't a good thing but why would it prevent lower wages rising?

You talk about the full employment thing but it seems to me that while it wouldn't automatically reduce wages the fact that there is a very large body of unemployed potential workers for whom any savings gained in a UK job (remember pre 2015) are worth much more in their home country due to differences in purchasing power parity index (Romania good example of this Vs UK) there isn't the need to raise wages to make role more attractive simply a need to have wages at a level high enough to appeal to those workers.

Why are you taking about "dusky" stuff (well I know why you are because it signals) this is Brexit we're about it's this sort of **** that's frustrating about the thread this was a question about the why an economic situation developed the views of Brexit have no bearing at all on the question.

Nobody got any ideas then on why Cable sat on this for two + years then?seems counter productive.

RDM_83 again

Reuters isn't thought of as pro Brexit right.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-jobs/uk-employers-raise-pay-as-brexit-skills-shortage-bites-recruiters-idUKKCN1BJ005?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59b2437804d301672d4f14f1&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

wes

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Reuters isn't thought of as pro Brexit right.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-jobs/uk-employers-raise-pay-as-brexit-skills-shortage-bites-recruiters-idUKKCN1BJ005?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59b2437804d301672d4f14f1&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Good news in the short term. Would give multinationals more reason to move to elsewhere in Europe, and in if they don't need EU access moving this further afield.

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted. No dumping of comedy links please.